FactCheck: In patients' best interests?
Updated on 08 February 2007
Health minister Rosie Winterton says the decision to axe Hartlepool University Hospital was clear.
The Claim
"The process has been clear and decisions have been taken in the best interests of patients in the area."
Health minister Rosie Winterton on the decision to axe the University Hospital of Hartlepool.
House of Commons debate, 6 February 2007.
Background
As any good politician knows, few things are more likely to give you a hiding in the polls than a hospital closure.
Hence much angst in Hartlepool as a question mark hovered over the future of its hospital.
So, is Rosie Winterton correct to say the decision-making process on the future of the University Hospital of Hartlepool was clear and taken in the best interests of patients in the area?
Analysis
The future of the University Hospital of Hartlepool was central to the Tees Services Review, set up in June 2003.
The Review was set up by the local strategic health authority (SHA) to find out whether services in the area needed a shake-up.
A few months down the line and it appeared "clear" where the process was heading.
Ken Jarrold, the SHA boss, said: "We are considering a major reorganisation of services at both hospitals (Hartlepool and North Tees) and closing one - more likely both - of the existing sites and relocating both to a new site."
Mr Jarrold reaffirmed this position in February 2004, when he said: "What has come out of all consultations ... is that existing services will be difficult to sustain."
So it looked like Hartlepool's hospital was doomed. But the publication of the Review was delayed, and a well-known figure was about to get involved.
Former Hartlepool MP Peter Mandelson made it clear in mid-2004 that he was concerned about the direction of the Review.
Enter Mandelson
Former Hartlepool MP Peter Mandelson made it clear in mid-2004 that he was concerned about the direction of the Review, and called on the Department of Health (DoH) to intervene.
Duly the DoH got involved; Professor Ara Darzi was appointed to review the Tees Services Review, with a new remit to keep a "full range" of health services in Hartlepool.
Why the sudden change in direction? Well, Peter Mandelson was heading off to become Britain's EU Commissioner and this safe Labour seat was up for grabs.
It is entirely possible, but beyond FactCheck's remit, to speculate further: were the two things connected?
"John Reid is saying it won't close, I'm saying it won't close."Tony Blair
Enter the prime minister
In September 2004, Tony Blair told the people of Hartlepool that contrary to what Mr Jarrold had been saying: "There is no question of the hospital closing or services being rundown.
"John Reid [at the time health secretary] is saying it won't close, I'm saying it won't close."
The U-turn was apparently complete. The hospital was saved - and Labour held the seat. Not quite the "clear" process of which Winterton boasted.
July 2005, and Blair's promises were compounded by Prof Darzi, the man brought in to review the original review.
Not only was Hartlepool's hospital to be saved, Darzi proposed moving maternity, consultant-led paediatrics, a special baby unit and breast cancer surgery from the University Hospital of North Tees to the town.
The SHA backed Prof Darzi's plans in early 2006, proposals which a neighbouring councillor branded as "very biased in favour of Hartlepool".
Verdict
For Winterton to claim the process over deciding the future of Hartlepool's hospital was clear is somewhat laughable.
Plans to shake-up services were reviewed three times in a little over three years.
Whether one of the reviews was in the "best interests of patients in the area" is dubious too, given its close proximity to a by-election.
The only saving grace for those disappointed to lose their hospital is the decision may be reviewed again.
FactCheck Rating: 4 (How ratings work)
